xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>
Nate scrobe: (though, i'm not positive, there seemed to be a different
signature at the end.)
>
> This third example reminds me of the discussion on the
>problems of human abilities between Leontiev,A.N. and
>Rubinshtein. Rubinshtein criticised the application of idea
>"appropriation" of Marx into psychology by Leontiev in his
>paper "Problem of abilities and problems of psychological
>theory, Problems of psychology 1960". Now I have no
>time to explain his criticism in detail. I write here
>only points of his criticism: (1) The concept "pricvoenie"
>(appropriation) of K.Marx will not serve as the basis of
>the idea that human abilities are the result of
>appropriation of achievements of human socio-historical
>development. (2) The idea of Leontiev of psychological
>development with the concept of "appropriation",
>"internalization" and "internalization" is a sort of
>mechanical determinism in the sense that it always
>neglects the conditions of subjects of human activity.
i'v followed for some time now these struggles to internalization and
appropriation and all of the other verbs we've attempted to use as
explanatory black-box principles to account for what is happening inside
an individual when there is learning.
but i think that this activity is highly divorced from the actual
practice / activity of teaching. in teaching reading to young children -
several hundred - i am always astonished to thus far no one has
demonstrated the same way of learning as another - in fact, especially
with children for whom learning to read is a supremely difficult task, if
i don't attend to what they are teaching me about how they are learning to
read, then i find myself at a loss as to what to teach them. but for
sure, while there may be broad applicable generalities that apply to some
students, i don't see any particulars applying. and for sure, i can never
tell if the child is "internalizing" or "appropriating" or "accomodating"
or "activating" or any of these other terms we so freely use. i can't
even tell about myself. of course, i may be dim.
but i have noticed that there are skills of argument over which word is
more correct - which seems to be a totally different activity than that
of understanding a text.
>
phillip
* * * * * * * *
* * *
The English noun "identity" comes, ultimately, from the
Latin adverb "identidem", which means "repeatedly."
The Latin has exactly the same rhythm as the English,
buh-BUM-buh-BUM - a simple iamb, repeated; and
"identidem" is, in fact, nothing more than a
reduplication of the word "idem", "the same":
"idem(et)idem". "Same(and) same". The same,
repeated. It is a word that does exactly what
it means.
from "The Elusive Embrace" by Daniel
Mendelsohn.
phillip white
third grade teacher
doctoral student
scrambling a dissertation
denver, colorado
phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:32 PST